S PARAMASIVAM Vs. M UMARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the original suit filed for the relief of partition. It is the case of the Revision petitioners that the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs who are the daughters of the 1st defendant comprising of 14 items of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit in O.S No.191 of 2008 preliminary decree was passed on 06.06.2011. In the preliminary decree 1/8th equal share was allotted each to the plaintiffs in respect of items 1 to 10 and 14 of the suit properties. Subsequently, final decree application in I.A.No.428 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiffs and Final Decree was passed on 22.12.2014. In the final decree proceedings according to the petitioners herein, they were set ex-parte and in their absence the final decree was passed.

(2.) In order to set-aside the ex-parte final decree, an interim application in I.A.No.127 of 2015 was filed by the revision petitioners herein along with one Amutha who is also one of the daughters of 1st petitioner herein. Since, to set-aside the ex-parte final decree, there was a delay in filing the petition to set-aside the ex-parte final decree. So, to condone the delay in filing the ex-parte final decree, the aforesaid I.A.No.127 of 2015 was filed. However, the learned trial Judge by the fair and decreetal order dated 08.11.2015 dismissed the application to condone the delay of 500 days. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal to condone delay, the instant revision petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appeared for the revision petitioners would submit that admittedly the application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set-aside the ex-parte final decree, the delay was inadvertently calculated as 500 days instead of 86 days. So, the delay may be condoned and the petitioners may be given an opportunity to challenge the inequitable and unfair division of properties. Apart from that the learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that even before the Advocate Commissioner, in the final decree proceedings, in respect of the 1st to 3rd of suit schedule properties a memo was given to the advocate commissioner. In the said memo, a suggestion was proposed to divide the 1st and 2nd item of the suit properties into 8 shares and they may be allotted as per the seniority. The said proposal suggested by the revision petitioners was accepted by all the parties. Though, the learned advocate commissioner has recorded the filing of the said memo in his report, unfortunately on his own he has divided the 1st item of the suit property by taken the guideline value of the property and allotted the value of the money accrued based on the guideline value of the property, with an intention to sideline and to do favour to the contesting respondents in the civil revision petition.